The European Court of Justice, the highest judicial authority in the European Union, announced its decision in the lawsuit filed by five Turks who lost their German citizenship because they applied for Turkish citizenship again.Five people who emigrated from Turkey to Germany and lived in the state of North Rhine-Westphalia renounced their Turkish citizenship and became German citizens in 1999 in accordance with German law. After a while, five young people who applied for Turkish citizenship again applied to the judiciary after losing their German citizenship in accordance with the law. The German court, on the other hand, referred the matter to the European Court of Justice for an opinion due to the fact that the plaintiffs lost their German citizenship as well as their European Union citizenship rights such as free movement and residence within the European Union.

According to German law, dual citizenship has been found to be exceptional. For this reason, it is regulated that the person who acquires Turkish citizenship automatically loses German citizenship. With its decision, the Court concluded that the regulation in German law that a person who voluntarily becomes a citizen of a state that is not a member of the European Union may lose his/her German citizenship is not contrary to European Union law. At the same time, in the decision taken, the European Union stated that it should be taken into account that citizenship rights may also be lost.

The Communiqué on the tariff to be applied by the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office in 2024 was published in the Official Gazette dated 24.04.2024. Following the update, some remarkable amounts are; 

-Single Class Trademark Application fee is 1630 Turkish Liras,

-Trademark registration fee is 4020 Turkish Liras,

-Trademark registration certificate issuance process 1670 Turkish Liras,

-The objection fee for published trademark applications is 640 Turkish Liras,

-Brand renewal fee is 5010 Turkish Liras,

-Patent application fee is 360 Turkish Liras,

-The design registration application fee is 1200 Turkish Liras.

Additionally, other amounts determined by the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office have also been amended.

At the same time, with the said Communiqué, the fee tariff of 2023 has been repealed.

 

A decision was made to the Personal Data Protection Board about an electronic and engineering company based in Germany and about the letter of undertaking application made on 15.02.2024. The content of the application is that the company transfers personal data abroad. As a result of the application, the Board has not seen any changes in the transactions made by the company contrary to the procedure and principles and has not seen any changes in the transactions made by the company in accordance with Article 9, Clause 2 Paragraph (b) of the Personal Data Protection Law. Related article statest; “...In case of the existence of one of the conditions specified in the second paragraph of Article 5 and the third paragraph of Article 6, in the foreign country to which the personal data will be transferred;

can be transferred abroad without the explicit consent of the person concerned." Therefore, the said data transfer was authorized by the Board on 02.05.2024.

 

The investigation initiated on 07.09.2023 against a company operating as a battery supplier in the fast-moving consumer goods sector was decided by the Authority. In the investigation, it was determined whether the company violated Article 4 of the Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition by determining the resale prices of its buyers and restricting the regions and customers in which the buyers would sell. Pursuant to Article 4 of the said Law, In the first paragraph of Article 4 of the Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition; "Such decisions and actions of inter-enterprise agreements, concerted actions and associations of undertakings that have the purpose of directly or indirectly preventing, distorting or restricting competition in a certain goods or service market or that cause or may cause this effect are unlawful and prohibited.”

The determination of the resale price refers to the agreements made by the undertakings at different levels of the production and distribution chain on a minimum, fixed and maximum price for the sale of the product. In its assessment of the impact on the determination of the resale price, the Board analyzed the positive and negative effects of the application of the determination of the alleged resale price on customers and consumers. The act of setting the resale price is a limitation aimed at eliminating direct intra-brand competition. This restriction to increase the price faced by the consumer can cause high levels of destruction in intra-brand competition.

In the light of the reasons explained, in the investigation against the company operating as a battery distribution supplier, it was decided to terminate it with a compromise in terms of the practices of its buyers to determine the resale price, and with a commitment in terms of the allegations of the obligation not to compete with the regional and internet sales restriction.

The plaintiff applied to the Court of First Instance for the collection of his loss of 5,000 Turkish Liras from the defendants due to material damage and loss of value of his vehicle. The dispute in question relates to the claim for compensation for the loss of value. In the reply petition, the defendants claimed that the damage to the plaintiff's vehicle was paid by the insurance company in question, and that the defendant was paid 2,012 TL in compensation for loss of value. However, while the plaintiff could compensate the damage from the insurance company, he argued that there was no legal benefit in the lawsuit filed against the insurance company in the commercial court, that it was not possible to say that the vehicle lost value in an exorbitant environment and that the compensation should not be a means of enrichment and requested the dismissal of the lawsuit. Thereupon, the Court of First Instance ruled against the defendant and ordered the plaintiff to be compensated.

Regardless of the fact that the payment made by the defendant in accordance with the decision given by the commercial court will relieve the vehicle owner and driver, who are jointly liable, from the debt, the defendant appealed by stating that it is against the procedure and law to establish a judgment in a way that will cause repetitive payment and cause hesitation in execution.

The Supreme Court, 4th Civil Chamber concluded that the traffic insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident and the vehicle owner and driver, who are the defendants in the case at hand, are jointly and severally responsible for the damage of the plaintiff. It has been taken into account that the payment to be made by any of the jointly liable for the same damage will also relieve all other jointly liable persons from the debt; and that the plaintiff has obtained two separate judgments in two different ways. At the same time, in the present case, it was concluded that the judgment established in the commercial court and the payment made by the insurance company after the judgment were decided without taking into account. For the reasons explained, the decision given by the commercial court of first instance was deemed to be contrary to the procedure and law, and the request of the Ministry of Justice to reverse the decision in the interest of the law was accepted and it was decided to reverse the decision in the interest of the law.